Yesterday I blogged about the wider context behind the USA's seemingly choatic and contradictory policies in the Middle East, which appear to be to create as much chaos as possible by inflaming internal and traditional divisions in the Islamic world in order to weaken its most powerful states, and to manage the transition to new energy systems, which are, I suspect, the big and most significant context by which to interpret recent geopolitical events. A sudden release of new energy technologies, without such a commensurate weakening of those states, would conceivably drive them into precipitate and dangerous actions in order to protect their power if, say, a method were contrived to outflank or replace petroleum. Creating chaos, and keeping those states embroiled in it, allows the transition to a new energy paradigm to be more easily managed, while at the same time creating the conditions for the removal of some truly odious regimes and characters.

In that light, consider this very important article from our friends at, shared by Mr. K.H., who, in his email to me, qualified it as a "game changer." I concur with him. Read the article, and see if you do too:

Proven one-step process to convert CO2 and water directly into liquid hydrocarbon fuel

The meat of the article is contained in the following paragraphs, and note the connection of the process to planned experiments involving the use of solar power for the reaction's light source:

A team of University of Texas at Arlington chemists and engineers have proven that concentrated light, heat and high pressures can drive the one-step conversion of carbon dioxide and water directly into useable liquid hydrocarbon fuels.

This simple and inexpensive new sustainable fuels technology could potentially help limit global warming by removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere to make fuel. The process also reverts oxygen back into the system as a byproduct of the reaction, with a clear positive environmental impact, researchers said.

"Our process also has an important advantage over battery or gaseous-hydrogen powered vehicle technologies as many of the hydrocarbon products from our reaction are exactly what we use in cars, trucks and planes, so there would be no need to change the current fuel distribution system," said Frederick MacDonnell, UTA interim chair of chemistry and biochemistry and co-principal investigator of the project.

In an article published today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences titled "Solar photothermochemical alkane reverse combustion," the researchers demonstrate that the one-step conversion of carbon dioxide and water into liquid hydrocarbons and oxygen can be achieved in a photothermochemical flow reactor operating at 180 to 200 C and pressures up to 6 atmospheres.

"We are the first to use both light and heat to synthesize liquid hydrocarbons in a single stage reactor from carbon dioxide and water," said Brian Dennis, UTA professor of mechanical and aerospace engineering and co-principal investigator of the project.

"Concentrated light drives the photochemical reaction, which generates high-energy intermediates and heat to drive thermochemical carbon-chain-forming reactions, thus producing hydrocarbons in a single-step process."


"Our next step is to develop a photo-catalyst better matched to the solar spectrum," MacDonnell said. "Then we could more effectively use the entire spectrum of incident light to work towards the overall goal of a sustainable solar liquid fuel."

The authors envision using parabolic mirrors to concentrate sunlight on the catalyst bed, providing both heat and photo-excitation for the reaction. Excess heat could even be used to drive related operations for a solar fuels facility, including product separations and water purification.

Granted, this process is a long way from cars with little solar-powered CO2-water hydrocarbon reactors. But it is, like it or not, also the first step on a technology tree toward such things, and as the article notes, it is a simple and rather inexpensive process, though we can all eagerly await the inevitable developments as the powers that be contrive to find a way to make it expensive so they can monopolize it. For now, however, file that "inexpensive part" on the shelf, and watch how this process develops.

The implications are of course, profound, for such a technology, if made practical and scaled up to industrial economies of scale, or if made practical for home heating, cooling, energy production, automobiles... well, you can see where this goes. It might - note the heavily emphasized subjunctive mood - conceivably remake the entire energy industry and the industries based upon it. Add to this 3d printing or additive manufacturing, and the power of certain odious regimes and nations evaporates.
But even if this should prove unfeasible, there is one final implication about this process that should be noted, and that is that hydrocarbons, so called "fossil fuels", are a more renewable energy source than the "fossil fuel" paradigm would have us believe. And that fact alone makes this story a "game changer."
See you on the flip side...
Posted in

Joseph P. Farrell

Joseph P. Farrell has a doctorate in patristics from the University of Oxford, and pursues research in physics, alternative history and science, and "strange stuff". His book The Giza DeathStar, for which the Giza Community is named, was published in the spring of 2002, and was his first venture into "alternative history and science".


  1. MDC on February 29, 2016 at 10:44 am

    Meanwhile in 1943 someone else used photoelectric process to make synthetic fuel and other things.
    So roughly 70 years later we release the old stuff…?
    I think one of Henry Stephens books talks about this process.

    • Scooter-Fishwick on February 29, 2016 at 11:25 am

      I’m confused about something. So this is good for the environment because you can remove CO2 from the atmposphere and use it in this fuel making process BUT what are the emissions from burning this fuel? I would assume of this synth hydro carbon fuel is just like gas then you’d be taking CO2 OUT of the atmosphere and them pumping it right back INTO the atmosphere?

      • Scooter-Fishwick on February 29, 2016 at 12:29 pm

        And more importantly Carbon dioxide and all of the other fun stuff produced from burning gas. This doesn’t seem that viable to me. We need clean renewable energy not an unlimited supply of the same stuff we’ve been burning for 100+ years.

        • Robert Barricklow on February 29, 2016 at 3:44 pm

          Last night at the Academy Propaganda Awa… err Academy Awards, DiCaprio talked of global warming w/the implied CO2 trigger. It’s the Sun, stupid[meaning DiCaprio & others who are swallowing this carbon-trade scam by Goldman Sachs Inc. types]. The actor should have had his scripted reply all lined-up, all his ducks in-a-row, rolling of his tongue in rapid-fire academy-award crisp enunciation[geo-engineering, chem-trails, Fukushima, Chemical pollutants, GMOs, etc.].
          But, if he had, it would have been scrubbed clean, left on an academy award editing floor with any other revolutionary truths/Not-fit-for-academy-grade-propaganda.

          • Robert Barricklow on March 4, 2016 at 7:02 pm

            Reply to Scooter-Fishwick out of moderation?

  2. goshawks on February 29, 2016 at 1:58 am

    Assuming the article’s process can be proven-out for production, I drove past a solar-power plant near Mohave, decades ago, that would be perfect as an energy source. Simple, one-curve mirrors on pivots directed sunlight onto a central cylinder that contained salts which would become molten in the concentrated ‘beam’. The heat would then run a basic steam powerplant. This test plant proved the concept, and then was ignored…

    Concentrate the light onto the CO2/H2O mix, instead, and there you go…

    (Agree that it has to be kept out of monopolist hands…)

    • goshawks on February 29, 2016 at 2:20 am

      (Image what we could have done with one-and-a-half Trillion dollars of such plants, rather than foreign wars…)

  3. Robert Barricklow on February 28, 2016 at 5:25 pm

    This article is symbolic in the signatures of those whom are in control, at least on the surface that extends to most perceptions. Here, at this site, we prefer to look deeper; to the artist’s perspective vanishing points, where this technology actually originated. There exist secret organizations within the power structures that test-drive technologies before the staged-oz curtain rises for public view. Within that corporatized infrastructure; our creativity, our knowledge, & our learning becomes not qualities that emancipate but commodities that bind us to our alienation from the human condition – from society & from nature.
    Importantly; this degradation of human value is not grounded in technology, in and of itself –
    it is grounded in the Character of a New Technology:
    Enclosed vs Open.

    • zendogbreath on February 28, 2016 at 9:07 pm

      so how do we open up?

      • Robert Barricklow on February 29, 2016 at 12:12 pm

        Basically this open-theme comes from the enclosure of the commons. It is currently best translated by an up-to-date manifesto/The Open-Source Everything Manifesto: Transparency, Truth and Trust June 5, 2012 by Robert David Steele

  4. Jon on February 28, 2016 at 3:58 pm

    I saw the article and it immediately clicked with me as well.

    Then again, deserts are perfect places for solar facilities (lots of sunlight), so it might also be a way to bring those areas to heel if they are allowed to participate in some small way. Economic leverage could be used to assist “regime change” with this new tech.

    The process will be patented, so the licensing will be as lucrative (or more so) as the patents on petroleum. I think we can see that this would be a perfect transition methodology – keep the current fuel infrastructure (and middlemen) intact, and become more sustainable with less disruption. Depending on the catalyst needed, it could be a very viable way to move forward more smoothly.

    This process is hopefully also cleaner than oil refining, so other (real) forms of pollution could be eliminated as well as the psuedo-pollutant carbon dioxide. All the global warming cultists could be happy with it (we’re reusing the carbon, not leaving it to”pollute” the environment), and it could very well silence their complaints in a major way. (Not that it would impact climate change, which is not human caused, anyway. But it could reduce the chemical pollution from oil, which would be a huge benefit.)

    This may also offer an adjunct to carbon traders so that they could leverage carbon laws to eradicate the older (out of patent) technologies while making money on them as they go away.

    • Scooter-Fishwick on February 29, 2016 at 12:16 pm

      So Jon, you do not think that completely altering the chemical composition of the planets atmosphere has in anyway negatively effected the Ecosystem?

      • TRM on March 1, 2016 at 11:38 pm

        Define “completely altering”. If by that you mean taking CO2 from 300 to 400 PPM that is not completely altering anything.

        During the Permiam there was a 30 million year stretch of time with low CO2 similar to our current 20 million year stretch. In between there was 250 million years of CO2 over 1000 PPM. Life flourished. Both quantity and diversity were much greater (barring a few asteroids thinning out the herds).

        Even if we burn all the fossil fuels known we would not double the CO2 to 800 PPM. Doubling from 300 to 600 PPM will result in a 1.2 to 1.6 degree C warming. That is well below the 2 C that the IPCC itself says would cause problems.

        The PDO is in its negative phase, the AMO has peaked and is on the way down and the sun is in its quietest phase in hundreds of years. So we have a great opportunity to do real science. If CO2 does control the climate then we should get warmer despite all those factors. If it doesn’t then expect it to get much colder over the next several decades. So far the evidence of science is that CO2 does NOT control the climate.

  5. Gaia Mars-hall on February 28, 2016 at 3:51 pm

    Game Over…Well just about there!

  6. Mysteron88 on February 28, 2016 at 1:47 pm

    Well thats interesting because this report predicts a future oil price of $0 per barrel.

    I wonder if it might be something to do with the technology being developed by Brilliant Light Power –

    Its worth watching the latest public demonstration video’s on their site, noting who is on the board and who has invested and how much money they have raise $100m +

    This is no dream technology and once the first power commercial units come to market (slated for early 2017) I would predict a very quick energy revolution with the Hydrogen in water being the fuel, no pollutants and easy and cheap deployment.

  7. Pellevoisin on February 28, 2016 at 1:29 pm

    Dr. Farrell, the question in my mind is why would the controllers now allow technologies to come forward that would kill ‘big oil’.

    How has the worm turned so that this hundred year prohibition on progress has been lifted?

    I am truly interested in answering that question beyond my hunch that some elements of ‘breakaway’ humanity are forcing the question.

    • Roger on February 28, 2016 at 1:58 pm

      Mining coal and removing too much oil is found to be too destructive to continue indefinitely but not just for the touted reasons no doubt. We are beginning to pay the piper with increasing Earthquakes and more severe shifts in natural weather. Now that the effects are increasingly manifesting its finally time for PR damage control and shift to other controllable energy development. The biggest obstical was finding other energy technologies that didn’t lead to energy independence. Can’t have the populace getting too independent and lose your priveledges over them. They think they have finally come up with alternatives that will let them retain their power over others most likely.

    • goshawks on February 29, 2016 at 1:35 am

      Pellevoisin, I would agree with your ‘hunch’, except that I would also include off-planet and off-earth-plane ‘forces’ in the mix. About time…

      • Pellevoisin on March 1, 2016 at 8:09 pm

        Thank you for those additional ‘forces’. I would concur.

    • Mysteron88 on February 29, 2016 at 7:20 pm

      Lets answer that with another observation…..

      Q) If you were going to allow another fuel source to supplant oil what would you do before that happened

      A) Drive up the price of oil, thus increasing your stock price massively then dump it before the price collapsed

      Observation: Have we seen anything like that ????????

  8. Aridzonan_13 on February 28, 2016 at 11:28 am

    I’ve worked with large utlity scale Solar Dishes that can drive 850C temps during day light hours. Liquid fuel is the most easily stored and transported form of BTU’s. This concept has been around for at least the last ten years.

    High temp solar with activated charcoal has been alleged to remediate radioactive contaminates from water. So, sunshine can do a lot more than just drive PV panels.

    Big utils have been working behind the scenes to have income taxes placed grid tied solar homes and businesses as well as court cases where utils have inflicted a $500.00/mos meter reading fee. Centralize power and water production is how they control modern civilization. A decentralized method of producing water and power would have people no longer worshiping at the Church of the Grid.. Utilities are scared and have deduced serious changes are afoot. My guess is is decentralized energy takes off. They’ll be a counter centralized energy break through that will be soooo cheap as to destroy all competition and keep us all in the Chuch of the Grid, i.e. Cold Fusion, etc..

  9. marcos toledo on February 28, 2016 at 11:11 am

    The idea we’re somebody property shamus might be the eight hundred pound gorilla in the picture. And if oil becomes less valuable that might be seen as a godsend to the people of where this resource is found. Maybe the control freaks and the wannabe gods will leave these people alone for once. This technology is I suspect been discovered before so this has been known for years if not centuries. The real problem is as I have written before we’re dealing with Sadist R Us who’s only reason for existing is to torment every living thing on this and including the planet itself.

    • Pellevoisin on February 28, 2016 at 1:34 pm

      I agree with your conclusions regarding “Sadists R Us”, but we are well beyond dealing with them… or we need to be.

      We have got to move on toward clearly fighting them, capturing them, imprisoning them and dispatching them to permanent isolation from humanity.

      A great deal of work needs to be done in order to create a super-force of free humanity to overtake the controllers and to destroy the system of control the sadists employ.

    • goshawks on February 29, 2016 at 1:26 am

      marcos, you have indeed put your finger on it: The “Sadist R Us” contingent.

      After studying/watching over several decades, I have come down in the camp which states that the induced-suffering is willful and organized. To repeat the Charles Fort quote, “The Earth is a farm. We are someone else’s property.”

      I have finally come to the conclusion that we are being “farmed” for pain. Now whether ‘they’ just get their jollies off of it, or the pain produces some form of food for ‘them’, I do not know. Perhaps both. But, it is a long-term, continuing ‘project’. Mooo…

      I also agree with Pellevoisin (below) that various individuals and groups must look beyond surface chaotic conditions and check for the “Sadists R Us” finger in the pie. I believe this will point both off-planet and off-earth-plane. Understanding this aspect is crucial, before we can move on ‘them’.

      I still recommend a combination of E.E. ‘Doc’ Smith’s “Lensman” series and J.R.R. Tolkien’s “The Lord of the Rings” series for really understanding our predicament. Good luck to us all…

  10. shamus on February 28, 2016 at 9:49 am

    I would say rather, “contrive to find a way to monopolize it so they can make it expensive.” Of course, they will use the most handy tool for creating monopolies, intellectual “property”.

    Along with abolishing corporate personhood, I would say one of the most critical legal and cultural changes that needs to take place if we are to be delivered from the oppression of the corporate/government/banking paradigm is de-legitimization of intellectual property. See Boldrin and Levine,

    (Additionally, its the only legal argument for our own freedom and autonomy that we have to fall back on if Dr. Farrell’s and Charles Fort’s musings on our possibly being “property” of malevolent other beings proves true.)

    • goshawks on February 29, 2016 at 1:01 am

      Charles Fort did not ‘muse’ on our possibly being “property” of malevolent other beings; he stated it unequivocally:

      “The Earth is a farm. We are someone else’s property.”
      ~ Charles Fort

      Another good Fort quote, along this line:

      “If there is a true universal mind, must it be sane?”
      ~ Charles Fort

      • Nathan on February 29, 2016 at 10:22 pm

        The most profitable chattel throughout history has always been HUEmans

  11. Nathan on February 28, 2016 at 9:44 am

    I hope that the PTB don’t end up monopolizing it , me thinks those people are stalling the advancement of the human race , I would think that hemp would be a great substitute for trees since it grows so fast , also I have always taken the Russian theory of oil which is abiotic, I also believe there are plenty of resources on the earth for everyone for it weren’t for greedy power hungry psychos

  12. WalkingDead on February 28, 2016 at 8:50 am

    Methinks we just found out that the “scarcity” of oil is a lie. The myth that hydrocarbon fuels are the result of limited biomass and dinosaurs is just that. The earth manufactures hydrocarbons naturally through a process that isn’t yet understood publically, and may not be understood at all, however it does allow those that pump it out of the ground to charge “whatever the market will bear” for it.
    If we start pumping CO2 out of the atmosphere in order to manufacture hydrocarbons at the rate we are using them today we may well upset the balance of nature as plants require CO2. The CO2 based global warming is known to be false because there have been numerous periods in earths history where the CO2 level was much higher than it is today with no detrimental effects other than lusher forests.
    Given the rate at which we are cutting the diverse rain forests down and replacing them with monocultures might lead one to suspect this is part of a depopulation agenda. It is most certainly part of the GMO agenda. One could even argue it is part of “big pharma’s” agenda also as there are many plants on the earth with medicinal value in those rain forests. The other resources beneath the rain forests are also part of the reason they are being destroyed at an ever increasing rate.
    One might even suspect that there may be hidden in the rain forests ancient structures which have remained hidden to date and which are being sought after for other reasons.
    How do you think “big Oil” is going to react to a technology of this nature? More or less the same way they have reacted to any such technology that has threatened their monopoly, I would suspect. As mentioned above, it will be bought and monopolized so they can charge whatever they want. Not only that, but it keeps us in the current hydrocarbon dependence and serves to postpone advancement toward better energy systems. While development of this technology is definitely a step in the right direction, how it will play out in the long run may not be so beneficial.
    As mentioned above, the geopolitical ramifications for the ME leave them with nothing to offer other than radical Islam, which no one with half a brain wants anyway, and will only get worse.

  13. DanaThomas on February 28, 2016 at 6:26 am

    There are a couple of little details in this very interesting article, starting from the quip about “limiting global warming”. Has this pro-forma homage to the “global waming” ideology been inserted as a sort of perk by the research team itself, or is there something else? Their grant, provided among others by the “Robert A. Welch Foundation”, is said to have been $2.6 mln, a pittance compared to many research projects. The “Texas experts” on the website might have some fun looking back at the connections of Welch in the world of Texas oil.
    Oh and of course, it’s convenient to produce a LIQUID fuel, thus propping up the good ole internal combustion engine.
    But there are also other implications as you stated, such as additive manufacturing in places where there is water. Places such as Antarctica or Mars for example…

Help the Community Grow

Please understand a donation is a gift and does not confer membership or license to audiobooks. To become a paid member, visit member registration.

Upcoming Events